I'm asking any and all evolutionists to answer this question to the best of their ability, and according to the evolution teachings.

I'm curious as to what the answer will be, as most evolutionists don't want to touch to much on that topic.
More specifically I'm asking you to explain according to evolution teaching how life began and over billions of years evolved into life as we know it today.

Attached Files

I'm asking any and all evolutionists to answer this question to the best of their ability, and according to the evolution teachings.

I'm curious as to what the answer will be, as most evolutionists don't want to touch to much on that topic.More specifically I'm asking you to explain according to evolution teaching how life began and over billions of years evolved into life as we know it today.

I'de appreciate any and all responses.

Thank you,L Buren. <><

This is the post I use for such a question.

This is the post I use for such a question.

A possible scenario for how I imagine abiogenesis, and evolution to have occurred (somewhere in steps 6 through to 8, imperfect replication is a requirement):

1. Earth cools.2. Free standing water and atmosphere.3. Powered by heat, chemicals build up in all environments that are no too hot.4. With no life processes, chemicals are only affected by the natural elements.5. Rapid increase in quantity and complexity of chemicals.6. Some simple chemicals are able to make crude copies of themselves.7. Replicating chemicals dominate the earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wet environments.8. Some replicating chemicals form more stable forms (precursor to DNA).9. precursor to DNA, out evolves, all other replicating chemicals, and dominates the wet environments.10. precursor to DNA evolves into countless billions of forms.11. precursor to DNA evolves into complex forms by combining with other chemicals and other forms of precursor to DNA (Symbiotic or Prey).12. Complex precursor to DNA becomes Ã¢â‚¬Ëœsuper complexÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ and is able to form stable structures to protect itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s self from the environment (Simple life).13. Complex forms of Simple life dominate the earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wet environments. 14. Complex life, form symbiotic relationships with other forms of Complex life.15. An explosion of Complex life (equivalent to Virus and Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcomponents of single cellsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢) dominates the EarthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wet environments.16. Symbiotic processes become unstoppable. Countless billions of different forms of life evolve.17. Single Cell Life becomes Stable. Everything else is either food or a building block of life.18. Two dominant life forms evolve (Plants and Animals).19. Multi cellular structures survive, and evolve into all forms of life as we know it.

Thanks for having the fortitude to answer a question that has baffled many others for decades.

Could I take a run at explaining what bothers me about seeing almost all of these steps-to-life summaries.

When I look at the list you have posted, it is a good a guess as any. Better than most.

So why don't I just accept that "science is very close to a plausible answer"... or seems to be in the future as it gets more "clues"...

Because ... look at all the competing explanations. They seem just as (im)plausible no matter how (un)likely they really are. One thing ... lots of contradictory theories and no clear winnowing out.

All the various "steps to life" turn out to be multiple guesses ... each one inventive (I like the clay origin ones best) but also riddled with implausible and untestable assumptions at many steps..

The real attraction of all these explanations for life's origins ... is that the assumed end goal of the solutionizer, forces us to think along a directional line. e see it move along that line so effortlessly that it is appealing.

All the cook books for life have steps that "seem to fit" because we can apply intelligence to make a pencil path between the dots and get to the end of the puzzle.

That's not to say that it answers the burden required to be plausible in the real world.

An example will show what I mean by directional.

Take this step:

"Rapid increase in quantity and complexity of chemicals"

That assumes that counter processes and feedback loops
a- don't clog it up (production in one area devours available useful inputs and and the fire goes out)
b- don't start a degeneration (produces complex chemicals that react with other existing chemicals and both break down back into simple chemicals)
c- don't reach a peak state of irreversible inertness (like a burnt toast).

Remember ... No amount of energy applied will unburn toast.

My chemical experience is that you run out of raw ingredients ... and that even inputs of more energy will not revive or set off a desired next level of chemical reaction. And in come cases (explosions) the result is only fortuitous in science fiction movies.. it is usually a tragic dead end to the reaction.

I also see it easier to break up chemicals than make them more useful to the next step.

Of course a human can guide this intelligently, making barriers between counter-directional reagents and skimming the most useful parts for the next step and placing them convenientkly in the correct test tubes together.

But directional... and also undirected / at random?

That's a problem... unless it is empirically demonstrable....

But the "unseen chemical magic" uses chemistry that we cannot duplicate in our labs... and yet somehow reaches the next step (in this case the next plateau is a "self-reproducing" stage)

So tell me... given enough time and soup sloshing about ....it somehow just happens?

Is "it just happens" not a just euphemism for "miracle"?

Is one's abiding belief in a "just happens" not really just a euphemism for "faith"?

If not, then take out unproven multi-step directionality.

Try to make the same path using readily demonstrable steps and basic empirical facts...

Thanks for having the fortitude to answer a question that has baffled many others for decades.

Could I take a run at explaining what bothers me about seeing almost all of these steps-to-life summaries.

When I look at the list you have posted, it is a good a guess as any. Better than most.

Thanks, but lets not read more into it than is intended, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s only a very simple explanation of the events in the broadest possible sense for what IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure you will agree is a complicated question. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure what lionheart209 was expecting but a full description would no doubt fill a good many book shelves, yes.

So why don't I just accept that "science is very close to a plausible answer"... or seems to be in the future as it gets more "clues"...

Because ... look at all the competing explanations. They seem just as (im)plausible no matter how (un)likely they really are. One thing ... lots of contradictory theories and no clear winnowing out.

You should not take the Ã¢â‚¬Å“plausibleÃ¢â‚¬Â answers as fact thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s for sure, they are a scenario where the theme is plausible, that breaks no natural laws. Abiogenesis for example is not envisioned to be anything more complicated than molecular replication. In principle a simple process, in practice a difficult situation to replicate because of the large number of variables and unknowns. DNA for all itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s complexity, is intrinsically a very simple compound.

All the various "steps to life" turn out to be multiple guesses ... each one inventive (I like the clay origin ones best) but also riddled with implausible and untestable assumptions at many steps..

The real attraction of all these explanations for life's origins ... is that the assumed end goal of the solutionizer, forces us to think along a directional line. e see it move along that line so effortlessly that it is appealing.

All the cook books for life have steps that "seem to fit" because we can apply intelligence to make a pencil path between the dots and get to the end of the puzzle.

But is science claiming to know what the answer is?, no. All it is saying (with respect to my answer) is that when/if we do find the answer is should be something like this.

That's not to say that it answers the burden required to be plausible in the real world.

An example will show what I mean by directional.

Take this step:

"Rapid increase in quantity and complexity of chemicals"

That assumes that counter processes and feedback loops a- don't clog it up (production in one area devours available useful inputs and and the fire goes out) b- don't start a degeneration (produces complex chemicals that react with other existing chemicals and both break down back into simple chemicals)c- don't reach a peak state of irreversible inertness (like a burnt toast).

Remember ... No amount of energy applied will unburn toast.

All these things could have happened to any number of false starts to life, which is just as likely. The fact that all life is DNA based requires a very specific and singular path to life as we know it. This could have resulted from the equivalent of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœchemical evolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (IMO this is likely) or it may be the only way life can start, at this point in time we just donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know. But the premise is that replicating molecules replicate and will continue to do so in the right environment, if the right conditions prevail nothing short of a calamity can now rid the world of this process.

My chemical experience is that you run out of raw ingredients ... and that even inputs of more energy will not revive or set off a desired next level of chemical reaction. And in come cases (explosions) the result is only fortuitous in science fiction movies.. it is usually a tragic dead end to the reaction.

Saturation is the likely endgame if replicating molecules replicate perfectly, but DNA does not do that, it replicates imperfectly, and this is a very important point, possibly the most important point re evolution, i.e. perfection = extinction. If replication produces difference the very likely path is Ã¢â‚¬Å“chemical cannibalismÃ¢â‚¬Â, why bother with raw materials when there are pre processed ones just next door. Evolution in chemicals, is this the point that qualifies as life?

I also see it easier to break up chemicals than make them more useful to the next step.

Of course a human can guide this intelligently, making barriers between counter-directional reagents and skimming the most useful parts for the next step and placing them convenientkly in the correct test tubes together.

But directional... and also undirected / at random?

That's a problem... unless it is empirically demonstrable....

But the "unseen chemical magic" uses chemistry that we cannot duplicate in our labs... and yet somehow reaches the next step (in this case the next plateau is a "self-reproducing" stage)

So tell me... given enough time and soup sloshing about ....it somehow just happens?

Is "it just happens" not a just euphemism for "miracle"?

Is one's abiding belief in a "just happens" not really just a euphemism for "faith"?

If not, then take out unproven multi-step directionality.

Try to make the same path using readily demonstrable steps and basic empirical facts...

In the Abiogenesis discussion there are links to experiments with the production of replicating molecules, this is evidence for Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthe principleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s reason to believe that such things are not impossible. To state itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s impossible before really trying is to give up, it is also a logically false argument.

A possible scenario for how I imagine abiogenesis, and evolution to have occurred (somewhere in steps 6 through to 8, imperfect replication is a requirement):

1. Earth cools.2. Free standing water and atmosphere.3. Powered by heat, chemicals build up in all environments that are no too hot.4. With no life processes, chemicals are only affected by the natural elements.5. Rapid increase in quantity and complexity of chemicals.6. Some simple chemicals are able to make crude copies of themselves.7. Replicating chemicals dominate the earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wet environments.8. Some replicating chemicals form more stable forms (precursor to DNA).9. precursor to DNA, out evolves, all other replicating chemicals, and dominates the wet environments.10. precursor to DNA evolves into countless billions of forms.11. precursor to DNA evolves into complex forms by combining with other chemicals and other forms of precursor to DNA (Symbiotic or Prey).12. Complex precursor to DNA becomes Ã¢â‚¬Ëœsuper complexÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ and is able to form stable structures to protect itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s self from the environment (Simple life).13. Complex forms of Simple life dominate the earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wet environments. 14. Complex life, form symbiotic relationships with other forms of Complex life.15. An explosion of Complex life (equivalent to Virus and Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcomponents of single cellsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢) dominates the EarthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wet environments.16. Symbiotic processes become unstoppable. Countless billions of different forms of life evolve.17. Single Cell Life becomes Stable. Everything else is either food or a building block of life.18. Two dominant life forms evolve (Plants and Animals).19. Multi cellular structures survive, and evolve into all forms of life as we know it.The abiogenesis aspect is currently being debated.

Hardly the point. If you were to look in any contemporary explanation of abiogenesis/evolution you would get something similar, (but I doubt as brief). I only post this to give a reasonable interpretation of current thinking, other than the earth cooling I suspect the rest is up for debate.

Yes. Although imagine conjures up the process of no thought behind the answer (which is not true). You will find the detailed reasons what leads to that conclusion in the Abiogenesis discussion.

Well yes, It's an imagined hypothesis that could be thought of as a possibility if we didn't already have the true answer of how it all happened in the bible.You see, with evolution and the process that's explained for it, it's much like saying something like: "No, the water in that tub that is so hot because it started off much hotter and is now cooler because it was sitting for this amount of time, however it could have been that hot the minute it was ran into the tub".

You have the hot water, but you can come up with any number of how it came to be hypothesis's.With the creation/evolution controversy it's the same thing, you have the bible which is Gods word, then you have mans attempt to explain life origin.

With life itself being represented by the hot water I spoke of above.We have the evidence, but no proof either way of how it actually came to pass.But both creationists&evolutionists alike, believe their respective world-views by faith alone.

I believe that inteligence requires inteligence to be created, you can never get something from nothing, all the laws of science and commen science demand that.

Attached Files

Well yes, It's an imagined hypothesis that could be thought of as a possibility if we didn't already have the true answer of how it all happened in the bible.You see, with evolution and the process that's explained for it, it's much like saying something like: "No, the water in that tub that is so hot because it started off much hotter and is now cooler because it was sitting for this amount of time, however it could have been that hot the minute it was ran into the tub". You have the hot water, but you can come up with any number of how it came to be hypothesis's.With the creation/evolution controversy it's the same thing, you have the bible which is Gods word, then you have mans attempt to explain life origin.

With life itself being represented by the hot water I spoke of above.We have the evidence, but no proof either way of how it actually came to pass.But both creationists&evolutionists alike, believe their respective world-views by faith alone.

With regard to abiogenesis, much of what you stated is true, an over simplification IMO, but it is true that assumptions must be made. In defence of abiogenesis however, is the fact that it is not currently a scientific theory and is not claimed as such, and the conclusions are more than just wild speculation, it speculation from the position of known science.

I believe that inteligence requires inteligence to be created, you can never get something from nothing, all the laws of science and commen science demand that.

Evolution does not give you something for nothing, it is not breaking any fundamental law of nature, i.e. that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed (the sum total is always the same), life, evolution, solar fusion, decay, erosion are all process that convert energy/matter. Growing, evolving etc, do give the impression that something is working against nature i.e. that things decay, but in truth life is a form of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœsuper speed decayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, we are gobbling up energy at a stupendous rate, just to remain static.

With regard to abiogenesis, much of what you stated is true, an over simplification IMO, but it is true that assumptions must be made. In defence of abiogenesis however, is the fact that it is not currently a scientific theory and is not claimed as such, and the conclusions are more than just wild speculation, it speculation from the position of known science.Evolution does not give you something for nothing, it is not breaking any fundamental law of nature, i.e. that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed (the sum total is always the same), life, evolution, solar fusion, decay, erosion are all process that convert energy/matter. Growing, evolving etc, do give the impression that something is working against nature i.e. that things decay, but in truth life is a form of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœsuper speed decayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, we are gobbling up energy at a stupendous rate, just to remain static.

The problem with everything you stated, is that everything you just claimed happens, is sheer speculation. And all you did was repeat evolution indoctrination.State facts, not the guesses that are involved with evolution, and you'll notice you don't have quite so much to say.

Due to the fact that evolution theory is based on little more than guesses.We must remember that the fundamental laws of nature you speak of are simply Gods design.

With regard to abiogenesis, much of what you stated is true, an over simplification IMO, but it is true that assumptions must be made. In defence of abiogenesis however, is the fact that it is not currently a scientific theory and is not claimed as Also included in the evolving of organisms is the addition to some of abilities such as thosuch, and the conclusions are more than just wild speculation, it speculation from the position of known science.Evolution does not give you something for nothing, it is not breaking any fundamental law of nature, i.e. that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed (the sum total is always the same), life, evolution, solar fusion, decay, erosion are all process that convert energy/matter. Growing, evolving etc, do give the impression that something is working against nature i.e. that things decay, but in truth life is a form of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœsuper speed decayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, we are gobbling up energy at a stupendous rate, just to remain static.

There is no known law of science (biology) which allows life to spring forth from inert material in nature. Regardless of any chemicals or energy available. When you say "evolution", what is included? If all inclusive (abio thru homeo-sapien-sapien) then evolution must satisfy the current assumption of self organizing chemicals to DNA. If only the evolving of organisms (from what point?) then the need might be limited to specialization leading to more complex organisms, but still contains organiztion.

When you say "evolution", what is included? If all inclusive (abio thru homeo-sapien-sapien) then evolution must satisfy the current assumption of self organizing chemicals to DNA. If only the evolving of organisms (from what point?) then the need might be limited to specialization leading to more complex organisms, but still contains organiztion.

Evolution, strictly speaking is how organisms change over time, not how life started.

However because evolution touches on many subjects indirectly, those subjects are valid topics to include in this forum, and things like the big bang, starlight, gravity, comets, geology are ok.

I was not under the impression that anyone had a different interpretation of what the exact meanings are? Are we in agreement on what evolution and abiogenesis are?

Evolution, strictly speaking is how organisms change over time, not how life started.

However because evolution touches on many subjects indirectly, those subjects are valid topics to include in this forum, and things like the big bang, starlight, gravity, comets, geology are ok.

I was not under the impression that anyone had a different interpretation of what the exact meanings are? Are we in agreement on what evolution and abiogenesis are?

I believe we have agreement on the basics of what they are. It has appeared, as I read some replies from you (and others), that evolution (mutation + specialization + time) can stand alone wthout need of the others mentioned big bang, starlight, gravity, comets, geology, abiogenisis . . . being proved or supportive.